I think that this is a problem that you, and you alone, are having and you are having it because of the pirticular way in which you and your opponent(s) play Axis&Allies. Everyone plays things differently as everyone interperits things differently and these rules are written on paper, not carved in stone, so they are open to interpertation. I dont think this rule unbalances the game or makes one side drastically more powerful then another. Its a fairly minor mechanic in the grand scheme of things and I think you may be blowing the impact its has out of propotion. It was designed to clarify whether the +3IPC NO for the Soviets would apply to instances where Soviet forces in the game take over territories from the Germans that werent orignally German or pro-axis neutral; i.e. the Germans are in Yugoslavia and the Soviets attack them and take it over, would the +3IPC NO apply? This rules clarifies that yes, in fact, it dose, even though Yugoslavia was not an orignal Axis territory. Same thing for Turkey, its not an orignal Axis territory or even a friendly neutral like Yugoslavia, but the +3IPC NO still applies.
As Larry says, this is ment to depict one of the Soviets main objectives during the war, which was to establish a set of friendly satlite states around the Soviet union to act as buffer states in the event of another war. The +3IPC represnets the accomplishment of this and the increased sense of security it provided (perhapse making the Soviet people more productive if you need some kind of real world link for these things to makes sense to you) and the enhancment of nationl prestige by spreading the communist system around. Or you can look at it as the Soviets were setting up puppet regims and plundering the resources of these nations more then other countries in game would hence the additional IPC. It dosnt break the game and no one else seems to mind it.
(and the insantiy comment was from a post in the other thread :-D )
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
Better to be a capitalist. (yes…… that was joke as well)
How about if we assume that the “propaganda value” of spreading communism to new territories wears off after 3 months (i.e. 1 turn). In other words, USSR gets a 3 IPC bonus the FIRST TIME they capture any axis or neutral territory on the Europe map (except Germany, which gets a 10 IPC bonus).
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
Not a huge fan of the “one time” NOs. It’s just another thing that has to be tracked.
If we limited the territories that Russia would qualify for this would be not so bad. Further, if we dropped the value to 2 IPC it wouldn’t be so bad. I am thinking of the following territories being 2 IPC NOs for Russia:
This includes all the territory Russia really did conquer (the Eastern Blok States or behind the iron curtain territories) plus the scandinavian territories except Denmark and tosses in Italy and Korea for good measure, to represent how much better a general you, the player, are compared to your historical counter part.
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
Sure, go back to one of my first games against EM. The Russians had not only all the Balkans but also S. Germany and were threatening Berlin.
If Russia takes control of a strict neutral like Turkey for the sake of grabbing a few extra bucks, it’s all over for the allies. The axis powers would be running for every neutral territory, converting all their standing armies, and gobbling up all their territorial income. It would be bad business for any side to challenge a strict neutral, especially in early rounds.
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
why?
@Young:
If Russia takes control of a strict neutral like Turkey for the sake of grabbing a few extra bucks, it’s all over for the allies. The axis powers would be running for every neutral territory, converting all their standing armies, and gobbling up all their territorial income. It would be bad business for any side to challenge a strict neutral, especially in early rounds.
I disagree. The allies routinely attack true neutrals in our games because most of the “standing armies” need to be activated navally for the axis. (Sweeden cannot be walked too, you have to amphib it since the allies almost always have Norway/Finland. S. America is just plain a lost cause for the Axis in our games. Turkey is sometimes gotten, but generally even by then the English have a strong army to counter it and the Americans and British started the whole thing by landing in Spain.)
Thing is, the allies can plan for the invasion of true neutrals and stage themselves accordingly. The axis cannot, the axis are land locked early or trapped in their theater in the case of Japan.
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.
It’s very similar in our games.
I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.
C
I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.
C
A while back, our group had a couple of different games where Germany decided to hit the big 3 (Spain, Sweeden and Turkey) all in the same round. Turkey was good to help Germany get access to the Middle East and create a southern front against Russia. Taking Spain made it easier to get Gibraltar. Sweeden was more or less just for the extra 3 IPCs and to lock down the German NO. In one game it worked out pretty good for the Axis, in the other game not so much. It does take a lot of German resources to do that which inevitably delays Sealion and/or Barbarossa, which gives both the UK and USSR an extra round or two to build up more defenses. Plus, now all other neutrals are Pro-Allied unless you use Neutral Blocks (which we weren’t at that time).
Now strict neutrals are simply left alone in our games. Like Carnage said, it’s better to use your equipment against a real enemy. We’ve never had an Allied power attack a strict neutral.
@special:
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.
It’s very similar in our games.
Rarely see Novgorod fall with the opening of Barbarossa, but then we usually open on Round 2 and there’s a cruiser in the way for the landings.
I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.
C
Since alpha 3 came out, every game I’ve played has had the allies invade true neutrals first. There was one game in which the axis did (game with EM on these boards) and it is really shooting them in the back. For the allies it’s a non-consideration, it’s free money and the axis are never in position to capitalize on it. (Generally Spain and Turkey go at the same time while Finland and Norway are allied held and no ships in the Baltic or N. Atlantic for the Axis. At least, no transports.)
Jen, Have you ever cosidered that the problems you have with your games are unique to your games? So far, the consensus is that, while poorly worded perhaps, the new objective works well enough and clears up a possible rules dispute.
I cant help but feel that this is an issue that you have because of whatever particular way in which you (and your opponents) play. So if thats the case, as just about every other post that isnt yours is people scratching their heads trying to figure out just how you get yourself in this situation (with Russians running lose in Ireland and Sardinia), then maybe its just your problem and not the games. I mean the obvious answer for any “doing X breaks the game” complaint is to say “well then, stop doing that” but still I dont think this is one that requires a total rewrite or the attention of Larry Harris.
and I hesitate to say this, as it may come across as a personal attack but please understand it is not intended as such, but with over 43,000 posts (to the tune of 16+ per day on average) one starts to wonder where you find the time to play the number of games to the lenght you do which allow these seemingly mind-boggling things to happen.
@Cmdr:
Since alpha 3 came out, every game I’ve played has had the allies invade true neutrals first. There was one game in which the axis did (game with EM on these boards) and it is really shooting them in the back. For the allies it’s a non-consideration, it’s free money and the axis are never in position to capitalize on it. (Generally Spain and Turkey go at the same time while Finland and Norway are allied held and no ships in the Baltic or N. Atlantic for the Axis. At least, no transports.)
When you said that it ‘regularly happens’ in your games I assumed you’d included your games prior to Alpha +3. These rules haven’t been out long enough for me to consider what happens in them a regular occurance.
With my shedule on base and other responsibilites I only have time to play once every week or two, I assumed it’s the same (baring online games of course, which I’ve never played) for most other people.
Carnage,
Yes. I am including Alpha 2 games as well as Alpha 3 games.
I’ve wondered if there was a way to dissuade a British or American attack on a true neutral. It just seems out of character to allow these two nations to wantanly destroy neutral nations and oppress the locals. Personally, I’d just say out right ban the attack, but perhaps a -10 IPC penalty for one round due to needing to send soldiers into the streets to stop the riots would be more effective? (Applied to BOTH nations if EITHER nation attacks a true neutral.) At least then it won’t happen on round 6 or 7.
